Should Ballot Measures Be Multiple Choice?
Measure A and Measure B got me thinking…why can’t ballot measures ask voters more than one question? Think about it…why aren’t California voters presented with choices?
Measure A asks voters to approve $840 million in bonds to “prevent a state mandated shutdown of one-half of Valley Medical Center’s beds…” Santa Clara County voters are asked to spend money to bring Valley Med up to state required seismic standards. Why not dedicate the $840 million to the construction of an additional medical facility at another site?
Let’s take our chances! After all, the Valley Medical Center survived the Loma Prieta quake with little or no damage. If a devastating earthquake does occur, we’re certainly going to need more than one major medical facility. What about “safety in numbers?” Why not invest the money in a second, smaller facility somewhere else in the county?
As for the BART extension (Measure B), why can’t voters be presented with two questions…Do you favor a one-eighth cent sales tax to bring BART to San Jose, and, if so, what design plan do you prefer?
OPTION A: BART to be extended underground through downtown San Jose, then on to Santa Clara. Or, OPTION B: BART to be extended only to North San Jose, and connected to the downtown via Light Rail.
So often, ballot measures present voters with just one, overworked choice that is the product of special interests or long, drawn out designs by committee. Isn’t it time to offers a greater say in determining their destinies? Would it really be that difficult to provide voters with more choices?
Pete –
I appreciate your attention to Measure A. When 11 Southern California hospitals were forced out of service after the Northridge quake, it become obvious that “taking our chances” with Mother Nature meant putting the public at risk. VMC maintains the only top level trauma center and pediatric intensive care unit in San Jose, as well as the only burn center in Santa Clara County. These are services that are essential in any natural disaster. Losing them would be catastrophic.
All the best,
Chris Wilder
Chair, VMC Seismic Safety Committee
This would be brilliant. I would be leaning far more towards Yes on B if we were investing in VTA rail (much cheaper stock and maintenance) along the proposed routes. Prop 8 could have the option of deferring all “marriage” recognition to private institutions (churches, etc.) and only civil unions are recognized by out allegedly secular law.
Both of these measures are turkeys. If A was so important, why doesn’t the county sell or lease the fairgrounds property to pay for it? And B supports and truly wasteful project. The alternative that you propose, BART to the County line and upgraded light rail to connect could be paid for by the existing sales tax. It’s too logical for our stupid elected officials to consider.
I think there are some good arguments in favor of your Option B. However…
It might sound like common sense to allow more than one choice on these issues, but I am afraid it would not be practical.
If there were an option to present multiple options on these questions, the political operatives would load each one up with so many options, differing only in minor details, that no one would be able make head nor tail of it.
I think it underscores the argument that ballot measures may not necessarily be the ideal forum to decide some of these topics.
It is not only a problem here. In the 1990s Australia held a referendum about whether to abolish the monarchy and become a republic. However the only option on the ballot, as determined by the politicians, was that the head of state would be appointed by the ruling party.
It was a blatant power grab by the politicians. Under the monarchy the Australian Governor-General is appointed by the Queen and has an independent role to uphold the constitution, which in Australia has on occasion gone as far as forcing the ruling party out of office.
The referendum failed. However, many people think that a republic with a president chosen by direct election, and responsible to the electorate and not the political parties (as in Ireland and other European countries), would have succeeded.
One solution might be a preferential voting system. In that system you rank order all the choices on the ballot. The least popular choice then is removed and the second choices taken from those ballots. The process continues until a clear winner emerges.
This is actually the system used in regular elections in Australia (although not in the referendum).
The State legislation that required seismic upgrades to hospitals should be a case study in unfunded mandates and their unintended consequences. Passed with strong pressure from the building trades who expected a windfall in new construction projects, this law has resulted in the closure of hospitals across the State not able to invest the huge amount of money required for new construction. The net result is fewer and newer hospitals statewide.
Now it is taken as a given – rebuild or close. I support Measure A and the critical services provided by our County Hospital. The “given” part of the pitch however is flawed. If the State adjusted the timetable for hospital facility replacement then we would immediately have some flexibility for budgeting for these large capital intensive projects. If as Pete suggests, the probability of the effect of a major earthquake was modeled across multiple facilities at multiple locations with data specific to each location, then the practical answer for assuring that more facilities were left standing might have a different outcome. A State mandate with fixed dates and a common requirement for all facilities has led us to this no-choice situation forcing a Yes vote on Measure A.